Talk:California Senate Bill 50 (2019)

A fact from California Senate Bill 50 (2019) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 May 2018, and was viewed approximately 2,522 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that California's Senate Bill 827 would have affected 96 percent of land in San Francisco?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2018/May. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/California Senate Bill 827.

Wikipedia

California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Resources

YIMBY Wiki lists out support and opposition
National coverage: New York Times, CityLab, Vox,
Alternative local sources: KCRW, OC Register (governor opposition)
Small town newspapers?

Sounder Bruce 06:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename page "California Senate Bill 50".

And include everything about 827 in the first section. The bills are very similar and SB50 is going to be considered next year, so it's timely and relevant.TekashiNine (talk) 04:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't rename this until the SB50 section grows larger than the SB827 section. You already created a redirect on 50 (Thank you! that's what I was going to do) so that's how it should be for now. Note that all the current references discuss SB827. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 22:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SB50 should stay as a redirect to super bowl 50.TekashiNine (talk) 03:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly hills mayor

https://calmatters.org/housing/2019/10/podcast-opposites-of-california-housing-debate/

This man's opinion is relevant, especially since a southern california senator shut down sb 50. TekashiNine (talk) 07:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add; a mayor's opinion is VERY relevant to a bill coming from the state that would so heavily alter local zoning, preempt it, and change the character of communityTekashiNine (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To maintain WP:NPOV, we have to include the opinions of more than just one mayor in an affluent community. What did the Central Valley mayors say? Or those in Northern California? Sounder Bruce 04:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

there wasn't much depth to the debate on this. local governments liked the bill if it exempted their city. there was a lot of alliances/dealmaking. overall most local governments didn't like it. i didn't recall anyone else that went as far as the beverly hills mayor in publicly opposing it.TekashiNine (talk) 05:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the bill was crafted to change zoning near affluent communities (wherever jobs were) along with transit, so affluent communities in particular are of interest. there are no affluent communities in the central valley. the marin county ones got exempted because their senator wrote a similar bill that 'merged' with wieners in a 'compromise'. this happened early in the process, so i am not sure you will find anything from them.TekashiNine (talk) 05:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i am sure most people are familiar with beverly hills and why they would oppose the bill. i think the sentiment was shared amongst all affluent areas.TekashiNine (talk) 05:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then please do find sources and include these in the article. A variety of viewpoints are needed, not just one example. As a reminder, the article is also not a place for political agendas. Sounder Bruce 05:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did my best to paraphrase an argument succinctly; i followed this bill and consider it important to include. if you think i am in the wrong then remove or change it. i will search for more sources. its a big state and a multifaceted problem so it will take awhile.TekashiNine (talk) 06:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So I would like to make a map that shows which city councils and/or mayors endorsed the bill, which ones did the opposite of endorsing, and which ones said nothing. How do I do this, since it will require me to compile a lot of separate sources? i think such a map will show the geographic disparity in endorsements, but also how some affluent bay area communities endorsed it. It's a weird issue of affluent areas with cartoonish prices due to jobs wanting it, but other affluent (old money?) areas not wanting it. it will be very telling i think!TekashiNine (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]